Moderators
Delegates
Recent Caucuses
Search
LSCs future?
What authority should LSCs have? Should they continue to be able to pick principals or should they serve just an advisory role?
What authority should LSCs have? Should they continue to be able to pick principals or should they serve just an advisory role?
I think the question is outrageous. We do not have a better system for local control outside of LSCs right now. Sure, I know some LSCs function well, while others do not. Yet, it is a viable option for local control. I say provide excellent training and monitoring of LSCs. Do not reduce their power. That would be counterproductive to the system we all fought so hard to establish.
I am well aware of Senator Meeks proposal SB3063 to turn LSC’s in Chicago into advisory bodies and hand over to the CPS Board all powers formally delegated to LSCs. I am not supportive of that idea in the least. The remarkable fact that the Chicago Sun Times has opposed this bill indicates that LSCs have a future.
But the biggest problem LSCs face are not their supposed incompetence, it is the systematic abandonment of school reform organizations that provide guidance, support, and training for LSCs by Chicago’s philanthropic organizations. Isolated members of LSCs can not take on complex budget issues that come down to the local school level from the district headquarters without research and basically lobbying support. Isolated LSCs can not critically examine the concept of performance management as guiding principle of the school district, nor are they likely to have the ability to be able to influence the district on the components of what CPS calls the School Performance Management Toolkit that direct principals in their work.
In the February 17 edition of the Defender Senator Meeks explained the logic of his bill as follows: “Every time I talk to CPS they say they do not hire principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at schools. So to bring the issue of education to the discussion table and to hold CPS more responsible for school leadership, I have proposed a bill to do just that. The principal is the most important person at a school. After all, they are the ones who hire teachers.” The Senator goes on to say, “Most LSC members are not sophisticated enough to pick principals and approve budgets explained. So basically LSCs are being used as scapegoats for failing schools. I think CPS could do a better job at hiring principals than LSCs.” As most of us familiar with the power of the Chicago Board of Education under Article 34 of the Illinois School Code, the Board has vast power to intervene in schools and has done so. It is far from clear to me that CPS has had an outstanding record in relation to picking principals to effectively run schools in poor communities.
The Board’s exhibits this lack of confidence in itself by utilizing contractual agents such as AUSL to hire principals and staff at some of Chicago’s "problem schools." Effectively Senator Meeks is under his bill turning over the principal selection process to third party contractors for many schools. If the Board had confidence in its ability to select effective principals it would not be utilizing AUSL to do this at turn around schools. Moreover, CPS can still say in many cases they say they do not hire principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at schools they can blame their contractor. If the CPS closes a school and reopens it as a charter, then it also can tell Senator Meeks they did not hire the principals so they are not to blame for any leadership flaws at these charter schools.
Communities should be responsible for their schools; LSCs are a base form of democracy that are conceptually liked to the idea that citizens should control public schools. I know this idea is anathema to the popular idea of Mayoral control of urban education, where the urban chief executive officer picks both the school board and its educational leader. This idea rules not just in Chicago, and one day in the future this idea for urban educational reform too will become passé.
Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of democratic elected control over education. In 1820, in a letter to Joseph Cabell, Jefferson expressed his support for some type of elected citizen control over schools in order to “keep elementary education out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers.” We may today be faced with a dual problem of both keeping schools out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers and the hands of third party contractors selected by an unelected Board of Education.
I am the student representative on my LSC at Corliss High School. I have a strong belief that LSC's have a promising future; I also disagree when it comes to the representative on the LSC. It can only be as functional as you want it to be at your school. Everyone deserves a chance to place their input on what should or shouldn't take place in there school. The students, parents and communities are the number one driving forces of the school.
My school can be considered to have an un-functional LSC because the way many of the reps doesn't voice their opinions on certain topics. I as a liaison between the students and administration have the power to voice what we need as students. The principal should not be elected in a school, without the LSC being involved.
LSC will only get better when the reps because to use their authority and power which they have as a member of the LSC. LSC and Advisory boards differ because we handle bigger things in the LSC than you would on the advisory board. Being a member of both I seem to have a more powerful voice when speaking on the LSC than I have on the Principals Advisory board. Having the LSC removed from the school would result in a voiceless school. The members of the LSC should always be able to know who they are selecting to run the school which students attend and the building that resides in their community.
ILSCs were created for a very real purpose - to give parents and community members a voice in and shared responsibility for school decision-making, and that this is a worthwhile and important objective. (I currently serve on the LSC of my children's school, and was a community representative before that at another school.)
I also share Patricia Watkins' view that not all LSCs function well. More troubling, the breakdown of LSCs too-frequently seems to happen in schools that most need forceful advocates for change.
Part of the challenge is that LSCs are limited in who they can recruit. I sit on the board of several organizations, and none would be happy if they were told they could only recruit board members from a particular geographic area. At a time when many schools have developed a particular focus (world languages, math & science, the arts, social justice), it is unfortunate that the schools cannot seek out specialized talent and experience wherever it may be.
Most of what I learned about being a strong board member I learned by watching others more experienced than I navigate important and challenging issues. Some LSCs have members with leadership, management and/or board experience. Others do not. And while there is no question that parents and residents of all stripes - regardless of past experience - have value to add to school governance, it is equally clear that having some members on a Council with organizational experience (and the confidence and fortitude that can provide in tackling serious issues) is desireable.
So while I am strongly in favor of maintaining channels for local input and control, I'm also in favor of finding responsible ways to ensure that LSCs include the specialized talent they need to successfully advocate for the school. (What about adding a third community representative and allowing community reps to be from anywhere in the city? Voters would still be from the school's draw area and be in control of who is seated, but an Arts school might recruit an artist who lives outside the school's boundaries, or a math & science school might recruit a professor from a nearby university. Or if a school is struggling with issues around social and emotional development and support, they might recruit someone from that field to run. And of course, if these candidates are not attractive to the community, they will not be elected.)
I understand the frustration that underlies Sen. Meeks' legislation, and think he's right to want to ensure CPS takes responsibility for the quality of its school leaders. And he's further right that LSCs do not always play the role we might wish them to play in hiring and overseeing strong leaders. Given the importance of involving parents and community members in schools, however, it's worth thinking creatively about how to further that objective without eroding LSCs.
LSCs are the last bastion of parent and community voice and decision making left, since control of the schools was handed over to the Mayor Daley in 1995. For the past 14 years, Daley and his appointed board and series of board presidents and school CEOs have been trying to erode the decision-making power of the LSCs, get control over discretionary funds and especially, regain power over principal hiring and firing.
Of course it's true, as Patricia and Robin point out, that some LSCs don't function well. But the same can be said about all of our democratically elected bodies, including the U.S. Senate and House of Reps. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others.
But some of us have been around long enough to remember when the principalship was purely a patronage job and when school leaders owed their allegiance to the political ward bosses.
Today we are almost back to that again with CPS being more or less and extension of City Hall's 5th floor. The elimination of the LSCs means going backwards to total and complete top-down, one-man rule over the schools. Can we really afford that? I don't think so.
What do others think about Robin's suggestion for changes in LSC composition? Do others have ideas for what they would see as LSC improvements? ... It's been my impression that LSC advocates have resisted changes for fear of opening Pandora's box.
I agree with Rod, i do not think the LSC composition is the problem -- though as a teacher i don't think it would hurt to add another teacher rep. The problem is one of commitment, community leaders require professional development to acquire the skills necessary to shape their School Improvement Plan and pick an effective principal. Certainly there are dysfunctional LSC's, just like there are dysfunctional and top heavy departments in central office -- but the risks of impugning community voice and eliminating it from our district far outweigh the costs.
LSC's are also highlighted in the Consortium on Chicago School Research's new report as an essential school support when communication between teachers and admin functions at a high level.
Ultimately the Meeks bill is counter productive, he wants an elected school board for more community influence in education policies but then wants to strip a significant institution of community voice in our schools of all its actual power.
Good points by all. One thing that has not been pointed out much, if at all, is the fact that CPS has had the final say-so over principalships at poorly-performing schools for a while--once schools are on probation the LSC loses its principal selection and budget authority. So for the district to say 'don't blame us for bad schools, we don't choose the principal" is disingenuous at best. As for having more expert voices on LSCs, that's a great idea, but what is the likelihood of getting enough candidates to run for such posts, especially in the worst neighborhoods?
My own view is that LSCs should retain their authority, and we ought to think seriously about an elected School Board also. The more outside fresh air and ideas brought in, the better.
And who might drum up the money to challenge candidates back ed by powerful interests such as Mayor Daley or the Chicago Teachers Union?